“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." ~ Matthew 7:6. I'm just casting pearls of wisdom before Swine Liberals, knowing in advance they think they're too smart to agree.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Not Born That Way

"The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions." ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson

Recently, on Facebook, I asked this question: Do you think Lady Gaga was really "Born this way"?

The song the above album title cut references is referring to people who have deviant sexual behaviors, and insists they are "born that way".

As an answer to my own question, I am re-posting a blog post that I wrote back in 2006:

Those who keep insisting that homosexuals are born homosexuals (as in naturally, not created that way by environment) forget one very important thing.

Common sense.

No one can honestly say they really believe that. Not even homosexuals. They know they were abused by some one when they were children, or molested, or maybe there just wasn't a powerful enough father figure in the home. Who knows?

But they won't admit it and they won't tell you. And I suppose some have been denying the truth for so long they have begun to totally believe their own delusion. They are too busy defending their perversion instead of working on the issues that have influenced then to become that way.

It is so much easier to convince people who would rather let so-called experts tell them what to think whether it is logical or not, isn't it?

I don't hate homosexuals, nor do I fear them as some have insinuated. I hate the act of homosexuality. (It is possible.) My whole argument concerning the subject is that I categorically reject the notion that anyone has ever been born a homosexual. They choose to be that way for the reasons that I mentioned. And more. In the last couple of decades, I believe another reason for "turning gay" is that it has become fashionable.

I have had many homosexual friends, (I've mentioned this before) and I like all of them personally. But every one of them that I ever spoke with on the subject has suffered some kind of trauma in their formative years such as molestation, at the extreme end of the spectrum, to simply not having a strong enough father figure influence at the mild end.

Every one.

Just the other day, I talked to a woman who got all defensive when I mentioned my belief that environment creates queers, not nature. Why defensive? Because her son admitted to her at the age of 14 that he was gay.

She went on to explain that, instead of trying to explain to him that homosexual behavior is unacceptable, she simply accepted it. Then she explained that he didn't have a father until she married when he was 7.

Thus proving my point.

Right there in that short exchange is two textbook examples of childhood experiences creating a homosexual. A mother who does not accept the responsibilty of guiding her son in the right direction, and no father figure. In that case, I believe the two elements combined to create a homosexual tendency, which in itself, is not necessarily deviant. It is when the individual gives in to the urge to explore deviant fantasies that it becomes unnatural.

I created a post about a scientific study back on June 3, 2005. Scientists genetically altered a female fruit fly by placing a male gene in it. It did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly.

A similar, more recent experiment was done with mice, if I remember correctly. Then, the article I was referencing (from who else? The New York Times) drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic. The more recent study drew the same conclusion.

But, the research didn't prove that homosexuality was genetic at all. In fact, it proved precisely the opposite.

The fruit flies would have never behaved in that manner if they had not been artificially altered. In their natural unaltered state, they would have behaved heterosexually.

An opposite sex gene never occurs in nature. It can only happen if it is artificially altered in some way.

So, if not genetic, what then?

Environment. As I said.

I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever floats your boat.

I don't really care.

But stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way. You weren't, and subconsciously at least, you know it.

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

96 comments:

I laughed all the way through this post. Your "scientific" essay is simply hilarious! And I noticed you provided SO MANY citations of scientific studies to "prove" your, uh, point.

I asked my deviant brother, the left-handed one, if he was born that way or if he thought it was simply fashionable to be left-handed.

It's wonderful to know that so much of science in the world can be discovered by "common sense". I'm sure that's the foundation of the works of Einstein, Freud, Crick and Watson, Galileo, and Newton.

No one can honestly say they really believe that. Not even homosexuals.

And yet most people and I'm betting all homosexuals do. Who are you to say what anyone honestly believes or does not believe? You don't HONESTLY believe in a talking snake, do you?

maybe there just wasn't a powerful enough father figure in the home.

Does your study say that lack of a "powerful enough" father figure turns boys into gays AND turns girls into lesbians? What exactly does "powerful enough" mean? Arnold Schwartzenegger or Jim Anderson.?

If a child doesn't have a "powerful enough" mother figure, does that turn them gay, too? How does that work exactly?

I suppose some have been denying the truth for so long they have begun to totally believe their own delusion.

"I suppose"? More scientific methodology.

They are too busy defending their perversion instead of working on the issues that have influenced then to become that way.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. [emphasis added]

In the last couple of decades, I believe another reason for "turning gay" is that it has become fashionable.

Sure, people choose to be bullied and beaten, choose to be ostracized by family and church, choose to face legal limits on their relationships. It's so fashionable!

But every one of them that I ever spoke with on the subject has suffered some kind of trauma in their formative years such as molestation, at the extreme end of the spectrum, to simply not having a strong enough father figure influence at the mild end.

Every one, huh? And you included in your "research" a test group of a similar number of heterosexuals and EVERY ONE had no history of "trauma"?

Care to cite the actual scientific studies to back up your "study"?

There's that "father figure" thing again. I'm guessing all of Barney Fife's kids turned into flaming homosexuals. With so many female heads of households in this country, why aren't we becoming a nation of homosexuals?

I believe the two elements combined to create a homosexual tendency, which in itself, is not necessarily deviant. It is when the individual gives in to the urge to explore deviant fantasies that it becomes unnatural.

And thus the conclusion of your "study" comes down to the code of the Sex Nazi: NO SEX FOR YOU!

the research didn't prove that homosexuality was genetic at all.

I don't believe there are any studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is genetic. That doesn't automatically mean it's a choice. Nobody has proved that left-handedness is genetic either, but that doesn't mean it's a choice.

You weren't, and subconsciously at least, you know it.

What? "I have spoken!"?

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

That said, the article that WK links to is not a study but a summary of other studies for which there are no links. The point of the article is that homosexuality cannot be "inborn" because it cannot be genetic. The proof is a study of identical twins which concluded that if an identical twin was "genetically" gay, then their sibling would by gay 100% of the time. Since identical twins are both gay only 10% of the time, gayness cannot be genetic.

Hmmmm. But if twins are raised in identical environments, why are only 10% of siblings of gays, raised in the same environment, also gay. Twins living in identical environments should both be gay if one is, shouldn't they?

So maybe it's not primarily environment even if it is not genetic.

From a New Zealand study that your URL links to:

However, the study showed a clear relationship between negative events in childhood and homosexual or bisexual relationships later in life.

Jim, Of course WK is a blog, but the sources he cited is what I wanted you to look at.

There is no evidence any where which says homosexuality is an inborn trait. Nada.

But hypothetically-speaking, if that orientation - i.e. desire - was inborn, so what? No one has to act on a desire, especially when one knows it is immoral and wrong. And everyone who practices homosexual sex knows it is immoral and wrong, but just denies it so as not to held accountable.

There happens to be an objective truth whether or not you or anyone else wants to believe it. The objective truth is that homosexual behavior is immoral and perverse. It is destructive of the human mind and body. And those who practice it, and those who sanction the practice, indeed know the truth in their hearts, but they suppress that truth so as to justify their lifestyle.

Jim, number 1: This is my opinion, not a "scientific essay", therefore, I don't need citations.

2. Left handedness is genetic. Homosexualism is not.

3. Most, if not all, scientific discoveries were discovered because someone somewhere noticed a phenomenon that seemed to defy a notion that was generally accepted to the general population.

4. As I said, this is my opinion, and I defy you to prove it wrong since neither you or I know what's really in someone's mind or heart.

Furthermore, I don't believe in talking snakes, but if God said Satan talked through one, I believe that happened.

5. I referenced no study. Perhaps you should go back and read my "essay". I said, "maybe there wasn't a powerful enough father figure". I concede there may be other factors that contribute to the choice to be homosexual.

6. I believe strong mother contributes, too. Often a combination of a strong mother and weak father will contribute to a choice of homosexuality. I've had homosexual friends tell me about their parents, and that's usually the case.

I agree. There probably is no one reason certain people decide to become homosexual. I offered my opinion as to some of the possible reasons. can you prove me wrong? Can the APA prove me wrong?

"most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

Sense of choice? What, exactly does that mean? That, after interviewing a few admitted homosexuals, they concluded that the homosexuals didn't know why they chose to be homosexual and one day, just woke up and decided, "Well I think I'll just go out and find someone who will want to ram his penis up my anus?"

How do they know their test subjects were being honest with them? How do they know they weren't just justifying their perverse behavior in their defense?

Give me a break. Your argument is as weak as the homosexual enablers who commented on this post when I first posted it.

7. "Sure, people choose to be bullied and beaten, choose to be ostracized by family and church, choose to face legal limits on their relationships. It's so fashionable!"

Surprisingly, yes. Because so many "pop culture heroes" are coming out of the closet, they want to emulate them. Look at the extremes people go to in order to be like their favorite music artists and actors.

The number of homosexuals "coming out" is in direct proportion to the level of acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in our society.

8.Yes. Every one I have talked with. Again, this is no a scientific study. This is opinion based on what I have personally observed.

9. "With so many female heads of households in this country, why aren't we becoming a nation of homosexuals?

Duh...Because Homosexuality is a choice. Thanks for making my point.

10. Nope. I don't care if they have homosexual, or sex with animals, or multiple partner sex. As long as it's consensual.

My whole point of my post is that homosexuality is not genetic, and I don't believe homosexuals should stop insisting it is natural and normal and stop trying to force their lifestyle on normal people.

Perhaps in your knee-jerk over reaction to my post, you somehow missed the point?

Actually, when you look at the fervor in which homosexual activists shove their agenda down the throats of normal people, one would have to conclude that they are the Sex Nazi's not us normal reasoning thinking people.

11. "I don't believe there are any studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is genetic."

Actually, there have been many that attempted to prove homosexuality is genetic---all eventually demonstrated to be flawed, and nearly every one of them done by homosexual researchers who started off trying desperately to prove it is genetic and who manipulated the results to reach their questionable conclusions.

(sigh) I've covered this. but since you appear to remain unconvinced...

"But if twins are raised in identical environments, why are only 10% of siblings of gays, raised in the same environment, also gay. Twins living in identical environments should both be gay if one is, shouldn't they?"

Glenn, I purposely did not refer to what the Bible plainly teaches in this post for a reason: People who don't believe the Bible will never be convinced by the Bible. Jim's reference to the talking snake proves that he doesn't believe the Bible, or at least parts of it, therefore, I don't use that argument.

By the way, Jim's habit of picking and choosing what part of the Bible he chooses to believe is an example of what Neil calls "Dalmation theology" Pick a spot.

Dalmation theology is problematic because there is no one arbiter of what is true and what's not. Therefore, it is safer to simply believe all of it.

I understand about the reason for not using Scripture, but my point in the Scripture I cited was that there is such thing as objective truth but people suppress it to justify their life-styles. It was a response to his claim as to what people believe - as if belief was the arbiter of truth.

The number of homosexuals "coming out" is in direct proportion to the level of acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in our society.

Well that's a big Duh! If you are gay and worried about coming out, it makes sense that you would be more likely to come out if you perceive that you will be accepted for who you are.

And, about choosing to be beaten and bullied--- Have you never heard of Munchhausen syndrome?

Talk about a stretch! Actually not a stretch. Simply absurd to try to connect coming out with Munchhausen. Oh my! Where did you come up with THAT one?

Duh...Because Homosexuality is a choice. Thanks for making my point.

Not making any point of yours. You assert that homosexuality is a product of environment and then do a Romney and say it's a choice. I thought it was the behavior that was a choice.

My whole point of my post is that homosexuality is not genetic

I don't think anybody has seriously put forth any studies that conclude that it is genetic. But genetics is not the end all, be all of "born that way."

There is no conclusive genetic link for left-handedness either. Yet in the same sense, south paws are "born that way".

So your point kind of falls flat.

2. Left handedness is genetic. Not proved. See above.

Homosexualism is not.

Homosexualism? Is this another "abbreviation"? There are studies that suggest that homosexuality is determined or influenced by prenatal factors.

I've had homosexual friends tell me about their parents, and that's usually the case.

A scientific study!

Can the APA prove me wrong?

The APA is in the business. You're not.

That, after interviewing a few admitted homosexuals, they concluded that the homosexuals didn't know why they chose to be homosexual and one day, just woke up and decided

Uh, no. There was no "chose". That was the point. They didn't CHOOSE to be attracted to the same sex. They instead became AWARE that they were attracted to the same sex. I don't know what floats your boat, but what makes some men more attracted to red-heads than brounettes, legs more that brests, big butts or blue eyes. Or is "attraction" a choice? Why your wife and not her sister?

How do they know their test subjects were being honest with them?

Like any other test subjects, I'm sure they lied. [snark] What a stupid question!

Give me a break. Your argument is as weak as the homosexual enablers who commented on this post when I first posted it.

To you I'm sure any argument to your ownership of the truth is weak.

Yes. Every one I have talked with. Again, this is no a scientific study. This is opinion based on what I have personally observed.

How do you know YOUR test subjects are being honest and not just making up stuff to hide their real feelings?

stop trying to force their lifestyle on normal people.

I'm sorry. Did one of your test subjects try to force you to be gay?

Actually, there have been many that attempted to prove homosexuality is genetic

And none proving it, as I said.

all eventually demonstrated to be flawed

They were flawed or they simply didn't prove that homosexuality is genetic?

nearly every one of them done by homosexual researchers

How do you know this? Or is this another one of your "opinions"?

No. As I've (repeatedly) said. It is a choice.

Actually, you suggested that it was a product of environment. Weak father, strong mother, abuse, etc. You even got the proof from your "test subjects". I quote from your post

Those who keep insisting that homosexuals are born homosexuals (as in naturally, not created that way by environment) forget one very important thing.

Common sense.

No one can honestly say they really believe that. Not even homosexuals. They know they were abused by some one when they were children, or molested, or maybe there just wasn't a powerful enough father figure in the home. Who knows?

"Actually, you suggested that it was a product of environment. Weak father, strong mother, abuse, etc. You even got the proof from your "test subjects"."

No, Jim. I said homosexuality is a choice, not genetic, and that environment is often a factor in that choice. I did not say environment made them that way.

I can say, "Because I was bullied for being short when I was in school, I have to murder tall people." But that isn't true. If I choose to be a murderer, that is my choice. Growing up being bullied only influences my choice. It doesn't make me a murderer, any more than growing up being molested by a step dad or a favorite uncle makes someone gay.

The molested individual still has a choice whether to turn gay or not. And, by the way, traumatic events do not excuse the individual's choice to be a degenerate, anymore than living in San Francisco excuses you from defending a deviant lifestyle choice.

Saying "I was born this way" relieves one of accountability. It's just like saying "I was born under an unlucky star."

Now, I do believe that genetics does play a part in determining our character. Some studies have shown that serial killers' children are often murderers too -- even if the children of the serial killer had been removed during infancy from the sphere of influence of the serial killer father.

Back to the post:

But every one of them that I ever spoke with on the subject has suffered some kind of trauma in their formative years such as molestation, at the extreme end of the spectrum, to simply not having a strong enough father figure influence at the mild end.

Every one.

I, also, have found that to be true among my male friends who are homosexual. I can say the same about lesbians whom I personally know -- albeit, to tell the truth, I don't know very many lesbians.

I do find it interesting that nobody with whom I grew up has turned out to be gay. Of course, every single family in my circle back then was an intact family, most of them with mothers who didn't work outside the home or who worked outside the home only part time. And in every single one of those families, what Dad said was the final word on any given matter.

Jim: Are you really so stupid that you think you made an effective, or even reasonable contradiction to what Mark wrote. Really?

No wonder the world is going to pot.

My own research into homosexuality, when I did my thesis, revealed a certain pattern that resulted from neither "choice," nor "genetics."

What my studies seemed to point to is that homosexuality is the result of learned behavior patterns resulting from a myriad of sources, including, but not restricted to, abnormal responses to social environments.

Certain paternal/maternal relationships result in a variety of responses in the male child, sometimes manifesting themselves in a deeply rooted desire to "set things straight" by substituting stronger attractions to other males, rather than females.

A similar pattern can manifest in females.

In other words, homosexuality is learned response to deviant stimuli that occur at a time when "normal" relationships are usually being formed and cemented in the psyche.

This is consistent with psychology's maxim that learning is a relatively permanent change of behavior as a result of various stimuli.

Behavior is determined by response to either immediate, primary, positive reinforcement in the forming of some patterns, or immediate primary, negative reinforcement in the forming of other patterns.

In other words, one's relationship to the opposite sex is established as a result of specific events in one's life that are assimilated in a particular way.

These conclusions speak neither to the "goodness" nor the "badness" of homosexuality, only to its origin.

One of the things we should learn from this is that what fathers and mothers do matters.

Another is that sin does not live in isolation, but affects those around the perpetrator ("perpetrator" in this case being the father and mother, as well as other societal influences).

Biblically it is clear that homosexuality is devient and sinful.

For the non-biblically oriented, it should be clear that homosexuality is socially and "evolutionarily" unuseful.

I'd like to see studies which claim serial killers' children also become serial killers, making it a genetic inheritance. Sounds a lot like the studies claiming homosexuality is genetic. I think the idea is totally bogus, unless one wants to admit there is a genetic defect with can be passed down - a defect which affects how the brain operates.

Glenn,In my lifetime, I've personally known two sociopaths (They were children when I met them -- about 6 years old). They were indeed diagnosed as sociopaths and fit this profile:

Some kids inherit an extremely fearless temperament that can be detected soon after birth, says Paul Frick, a psychologist at the University of New Orleans who studies children with severe behavioral problems. They seek danger and show no conscience, lacking empathy and guilt. They respond unemotionally to negative events—such as punishment or the distress of others—and they use people for their own gain....

Both of these children, one a boy and the other a girl, came from fine families. And the other children in the families of these two sociopaths "turned out just fine."

However, the distant family background of one family was loaded with criminals. In the other case, the birth was difficult, and the boy suffered from at least one serious head injury when he was about 8 years old; it was all downhill from there for him, and he lives in a group home now even though his IQ is around 190.

Did the two above individuals commit crimes? Well, they were never convicted of murder. But one of the girl's children died under mysterious circumstances. And, unless I miss my very educated guess (I can't say more, and there was a huge cover up), the boy killed and robbed someone when he was about 14 years old.

I should also say that both of the above individuals used all sorts of drugs during their teen years. However, the two individuals were "weird" even before the drug usage. Believe it or not, from the time these two went to school, their peers shunned them. Why? Because they were cruel beyond the norm! That cruelty extended to tormenting animals. Both of the individuals were bed wetters too.

In other words, they showed all the hallmarks of a sociopath. I do believe that the diagnoses were absolutely correct.

In sum, the situations I'm describing were not situations of the children being brought up in a bad environment. Frankly, I personally believe that genetics played the leading role in those individuals' mental and spiritual problems.

The previous report you mentioned from years ago, and this article, both sound like pure psychobabble.

What they don't tell us in this article is what sort of environmental factors are involved. Kids in "good" homes who are left to themselves spend way too much time on violent video games and watching violence in movies to where they are desensitized to harm. Then we wonder why the go out shooting those who pick on them.

Okay, my email gives me these things out of order. Just read your post linking to Psychology today. That's a major problem in my book - Psychology. Always looking for ways to excuse people from responsibility for their behavior. They have no proof of genetic connections, but if they make it sound good then the poor nasty person gets a break.

As I noted previously, if there is a genetic problem, then it is from genetic malfunctions that would have to affect the thinking process in more ways than one. Environment plays the major role, no matter how good the family may be, because I have seen too many kids from good families go bad simply because of the friends they were hanging around with.

But let's get back to the subject of the post. Let's say there is a genetic defect which makes a person desire sex with a member of the same sex. There is no genetic defect which forces them to have sex. Sexual behavior is always a choice. Period.

Glenn,Let's say there is a genetic defect which makes a person desire sex with a member of the same sex. There is no genetic defect which forces them to have sex. Sexual behavior is always a choice. Period.

Actually, I agree with you.

However, the brain is mysterious. For example, people who have epileptic seizures don't chose to do so; there is an organic problem with the brain.

Can there be an organic problem with the brain leading to deviant behavior that cannot be controlled by will? Possibly.

Of course, the big argument with genetics controlling behavior is that such a position provides a built-in excuse for all kinds of behavior.

That said, environment clearly plays a huge role. And, more comfortingly, we can remedy environment. Genetics? Not so much unless we go down the path of eugenics.

Imprints are made at an early age. Undoing those imprints is virtually impossible. However, a "spiritual event" and certain kinds of unlearning can effect the undoing. I've read numerous studies on that matter.

No, there can be no defect that forces people to have sex. Having seizures against one's will does not allow the individual to do anything - i have a friend who is epileptic so I know about them.

Jim,Why am I a "sex nazi" for saying sexual behavior is a choice? I don't care if people have sex, nor will I ever tell someone what kind of sex to have. So your charge is false.

While I have not yet suffered personally for saying homosexual behavior should not be sanctioned, I am in a position to be so since I live in a state which has legalized same-sex fake marriage. However, I can provide dozens of examples of people who have been punished with fines, jail time, forced indoctrination classes, loss of businesses, etc for only saying homosexual behavior is wrong and refusing to give it sanction. Children are forced to listen to homosexualist propaganda in the public schools, and yet you say we are just being asked to mind our own business! How about homosexuals keep their proclivities to themselves and stop forcing people to accept it.

I can provide dozens of examples of people who have been punished with fines, jail time, forced indoctrination classes, loss of businesses, etc for only saying homosexual behavior is wrong and refusing to give it sanction.

How is it that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. are expected to just sit back and go with the flow when it comes to expressions of Christianity in public and the workplace, but Christians are "victims" when they don't?

If a Jewish employee at Target refused to sell Christmas decorations because it offended her religiously, do you think she wouldn't lose her job?

If an employee of a private company refused to comply with company policy, wouldn't they be in jeopardy of losing their job?

What makes us Christians so special?

So genetics now "force" people to behave in a certain way?

Well yeah, in some respects. But not with sexual behavior, as I agreed with above. Read my posts before reacting. I inferred from your post that since genetics didn't force people to engage in homosexual sexual behavior, they had no justification for having sex with a same-sex partner.

And since when is sex a human NEED if one isn't procreating?

This is actually posted over the door of the entry of the Sex Nazi's meeting hall.

Are you serious? Ask that question of anybody in the world who is biologically unable to procreate.

Do you seriously believe you can compare talking about one's religious beliefs with discussing sexual perversion?

No one is ever using the force of the law to require anyone to agree to someone's religious beliefs. However, the force of the law IS being used to force people to accept perverse sexual behavior. You are comparing two dissimilar things - another proof of your poor logic skills.

Again, having sex is not a biological need unless you are procreating. Otherwise, go have sex with yourself or take a cold shower. You'll still live.

Jim, Having a discussion with you is extremely frustrating because you have such flawed logic, and fail to comprehend what is being discussed anyway. (And I think it is usually an intentional refusal to comprehend - that you are being intentionally stupid so as to stir the pot.)

Homosexual behavior is a perversion by objective facts, not just a religious belief. It’s called biology 101. You know - how the parts fit, male to female being the designed sexual relations. And you know that but, as with all homosexualists, would rather deny that truth than to be held accountable for abusing human sexual design.

No one ever claimed were were being force INTO perverse behavior - that is a straw man argument. We are indeed forced to ACCEPT AND SANCTION homosexual behavior every time someone is punished for saying it is wrong, for not wanting to participate in the sanctioning of the behavior, etc.

The lady who did not want to bake the cake refused to do so because by providing a cake for a same-sex union it would be giving tacit approval and participating in the ceremony. It is the same as with the wedding photographer who did not want to photograph a same-sex union because she didn’t believe it was moral, and yet she was sued and force to attend an indoctrination class, fined, etc. The doctors in California didn’t want to artificially inseminate a lesbian because they believed it was immoral, and yet they were sued, fined, etc. If I am asked to play for a same-sex wedding and refuse because I would find it to be immoral, at this time I am fortunate because by Iowa law I can refuse - but that may change in the future (I have already turned down a polygamous union ceremony).

By the way, it wasn't about not serving homophiles - the lady would have baked anything for them except that which was to be part of a fake marriage celebration.

The issue is about sexual behavior - not a belief system. We don’t want to be forced to give tacit approval to said behavior, and fake marriages, by being forced to provide services for them. We also don’t want our children forced to be taught that homosexual behavior is just another sexual “orientation.”

If homophiles kept what they do in private we wouldn’t care. But we can’t just “butt out” when they are not keeping it private and instead throw it in our faces and demand sanction for it.

In the end of it all, it really doesn't matter if homosexuals are born that way or not. Genetic inclinations do not determine whether certain behaviors are morally good or benign.

Many people are born with all kinds of sexual desires that we expect them to supress, Sandusky comes to mind.

Whether we consider certain inclinations more or less harmful is irrelevant. For if what makes a behavior morally acceptable is the genetic predisposition, then by default all genetic predispositions are morally acceptable.

To suggest that some people's genetic dispositions are immoral and others are not, is special pleading on the part of the homosexual defender.

Just because the behavior in question is sexual in nature and "feels natural and normal" to the one with the desires, does not a priori expemt it from being immoral.

The answer to whether homosexual sexual relationships are immoral is not decided by genetics.

Having a discussion with you is extremely frustrating because you have such flawed logic

And having a discussion with you is extremely frustrating because you base your "logic" primarily on what you've heard from the pulpit. You can't go down any path in this discussion without ending up with "the Bible told me so."

Jim,No, my logic is NOT based on the Bible, as I demonstrated to you by using Biology 101. And not only that, It is a rare day when I ever hear about homosexuality from the pulpit. So you are wrong again.

Long before I was a Christian, long before I even gave a second thought to whether or not there was a God, I already knew that homosexual behavior was wrong.

You can only assert otherwise, with no evidence to support your assertions. That is called an unargued philosophical bias.

Or are you saying that even without God, you had a sense of moral right and wrong? I thought atheists were incapable of having morals. I thought you had to believe in God to be capable of telling right from wrong.

Yes, Jim, I knew intrinsically right from wrong. God planted the moral law in the hearts of all mankind (Romans 2:15). But God also points out how men suppress the truth in their unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-19).

We don't say atheists are incapable of having morals; what we say is that they have nothing with which to base them on - no moral standard to measure against. They have to borrow their morals from the Christian faith because they don't want to admit there is a God who planted the moral law in their hearts!

I haven't looked over all my articles in my link, so I don't remember if I have referenced those with jail time assigned to people who had the audacity to speak against homosexual behavior. The incidents have happened in Canada and Europe. It is not exaggeration nor hyperbole to state the truth. Just because it has not happened in the USA yet, does not mean the examples cannot be used to demonstrate that people are punished with jail time for saying homosexual behavior is wrong. After all, homosexualists in the USA already have "hate crime" for those who commit a crime while thinking about homosexuality wrongly, and there are many politicians pushing for "hate speech," which is what these other countries already have. A pastor in Europe was arrested and jailed a couple years ago for doing nothing but reading passages of Scripture which condemned homosexual behavior.

And, yes, IVF, in my opinion, is immoral, especially if it is provided to homophiles. Children are not playthings or tools for social engineering - they need a mother and a father, and to be raised in a household where human sexuality is not perverted.

I have no idea where you found your definition for “homophile,” but it is false. The term “homophile” was the original self-definition for those who practice homosexual behavior, ca late 1800s-early 1900s. I refuse to use the word “gay” for people who practice homosexual behavior because the meaning of “gay” is “happy.” I also refuse to use the word “homosexual” as a noun because it is descriptive of a sexual behavior. There is no such thing as A homosexual - there are people who practice homosexual behavior.

I think you are looking for the term “homosexualist” which is a person who may or may not be a homophile but promotes the homosexual agenda nevertheless.

I don’t know of anyone who is NOT supportive of the civil rights for those who practice homosexual sex, but the homosexualists claim same-sex fake marriage is a civil right and that is not true.

I understand what IVF is and I think it is immoral for anyone to use it. No one should be playing God. If you can’t have a baby in the normal fashion then go adopt. It is even worse when “heterosexual” couples use donor sperm.

My comments about people being punished in the various ways for not wanting to sanction homosexual behavior was not limited to any geographical area. The point is valid no matter what country we are discussing because the politics of the homophiles are the same worldwide.

If you review my link to all my articles about those who are punished for not sanctioning homosexual behavior, you will find they are not just “tiny vignettes” and are in full context.

Children need both a mother and a father. There are circumstances which lead to single mother or father situations, but this should not be the norm. But it is a grave disservice to force a child to be without one or the other parent and instead force that child to live with homosexual couples who will teach a perverted idea of human sexuality, and the child will never learn what normal human sexuality is.

Now, how about returning to the topic of the original post - that no one is "born that way." I will not respond to further discussion outside of that topic.

As already stated, I am not discussing anything off topic, no matter how inane your statements are. However, use this link which goes to my articles which prove the harm done to those who object to sanctioning homosexual behavior. If it doesn't work, go to the home page and then under labels select "homosexual harm."

You want to "discuss" nature vs. nurture? Seems, like some have pointed out, that it doesnt matter. It is always curious how conservative christians can latch onto issues like this yet ignore the things happening in their backyard that actually destroy and disrupt family life.

I gave the direct link to all the articles where I demonstrate people have been harmed by refusing to sanction homosexuality. I DID the research for you - it's there for you to read easily. You aren't interested in the truth though. Typical for a homosexualist.

oh my..just for a refresher.. "Tell that lie to all the people who have already been sued, fined, jailed, etc for refusing to sanction homosexual behavior or else just speaking against it."

First you said there were all these people that had terrible things happen to them, one of which was prison time. I commented that you were making an exaggeration. Silly me.. I thought that was the end of it.

"You don't like the truth."

Lol.. really.. All I asked for was a link and you kind of lose your mind for a bit. But thanks for doing your homework.

That's the problem. Making laws which say if you don't want to sanction homosexuality you got to jail. Unjust law. How about if there was a law jailing you for approving homosexuality - I'll bet you wouldn't like that one!

No, I didn't google "homophile" because I KNOW the origin and it's meaning. I don't care what has become of it in the hands of homosexualists.

"Making laws which say if you don't want to sanction homosexuality you got to jail. Unjust law. How about if there was a law jailing you for approving homosexuality - I'll bet you wouldn't like that one!"

Unjust law? There are tons of them. You are supporting an "unjust" law when you dont want people to be married by the state. It seems a law is only "unjust" if you dont agree with it.

I'm so sorry to see that you have been infested with the little troll-boy's inane comments. Sorrier still to see that his antics have sucked Glenn into a confrontation with him. It's a futile endeavor, as the pathetic Parkie will not engage in a mature manner, offering anything substantive, as you well know. It's bad enough you have Ducky. At least with Jim there's some semblance of substance now and then, if not intelligent substance. With Parkie, just crap. He's incapable of anything more.

As to the point, I've no doubt that biology plays a role in homosexual attraction, but nothing that must be acted upon by anyone seeking to live a moral and healthy life.

But to too many, some of them very weak Christians, like Jim, sex is all important and how one pleasures one's self is all that matters in life. To them, no one has the right to suggest anything about such practices, even in the most general sense. And that's fine as far as interference in the private lives of consenting perv...adults. But when there is an organized effort to change our laws, culture and the teachings of our faith, we who know better have the duty to speak out against it.

But wasting time with trolls with nothing intelligent to say is not worth the effort.

Thinking Blogger Award Recipient

Followers

About Me

I don't borrow, cut and paste, or otherwise echo other Conservative blogs and talk show hosts. I sometimes refer to other opinion pieces, but the opinions presented herein are my own. Just because some talk show hosts or bloggers sometimes say the same things I do, any apparent similarities between myself and other commentators is purely coincidental.